Re: GREG -- questions and notes on your comments

From: Greg Aldering (aldering@panisse.lbl.gov)
Date: Tue May 06 2003 - 13:12:47 PDT

  • Next message: Robert A. Knop Jr.: "Re: GREG -- questions and notes on your comments"

    >From robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu Tue May 6 13:03:21 2003
    >
    >On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 12:55:17PM -0700, Greg Aldering wrote:
    >> Sorry in advance if this is a little rushed; I have inserted my
    >> comments, below. One quick question though - I found that the change in
    >> the aperture correction in going from a diameter of 0.5 arcsec to 1.0
    >> arcsec in only about 0.04 mag. How do you get 0.07 mag? See
    >> http://icarus.stsci.edu/~stefano/newcal97/pdf/suchkov2.pdf as an
    >> example.
    >
    >I got that just by integrating on the Tiny Tim PSF which was produced.
    >I normalize that PSF to a sum of 1 in the appropriate aperture.

    OK, I double-checked the above reference I gave, and it is refering to
    WF3. 7% looks reasonable for the PC.

    >> >On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 07:31:09PM -0700, Greg Aldering wrote:
    >> >> p26 Where you say "Note that although ..." you seem to indicated that 2dFGRS
    >> >> distortion maps and WMAP CMB measurements are not independent of each other,
    >> >> but they are. It is only if we add in the the 2dFGRS power-spectrum constraints
    >> >> that there will be some coupling.
    >> >
    >> >Can I just say "Note that although both measurements include CMB data,
    >> >tye are..."? Since both have the CMB in there, they aren't independent
    >> >constraints.
    >>
    >> The 2dFGRS results do not include CMB data. What makes you believe that they
    >> do? (It is true that one of the analysis in the Spergel paper includes 2dFGRS,
    >> but we are not using that particular analysis.)
    >
    >OK, I'm extremely confused at this point.

    I misunderstood the subject of the sentance. Perhaps you can say
    "Note that although both our measurement and that of Spergel et al include
    CMB data ..."

    >This sentence is supposed to be comparing our limits to the Spergel
    >limits-- I think! *We* use 2dFGRS redshift distortion and CMB. Spergel
    >is using the CMB, doesn't he? Or have I become confused about which
    >measurement I'm comparing to.
    >
    >> So by "supernova parameters" you mean peak magnitudes and/or values of
    >> E(B-V)? Are there any other parameters involved? If not, and since the
    >> list is short, I suggest simply listing what SN measurements where adjusted
    >> in which cases (i.e. magnitudes, and then for extincion corrected fits,
    >> E(B-V) as well.)
    >
    >Generally just those. However, esp. with using different template
    >spectra for K-corrections, everything can change a little bit (peak,
    >stretch, color, day of max).

    Ok, if you can just try to clarify what is being changed, and that the
    confidence regions are the result of recalculation using the changed values.

    >> >> p33 "Fur" ---> "For"
    >> >
    >> >So much for spell checkers.
    >>
    >> Fur is spelled correctly!
    >
    >Yeah-- spelling checkers are of limited use.
    >
    >> >I can't find this.
    >>
    >> At the top left of page 34 you will see a sentance that says "... correlate
    >> with host-galaxy environments ..." followed by a number of references. In
    >> that list of references, R99 is out of order, coming after Hamuy 2000,
    >> Ivanov 2000, Howell 2001, and Wang 2003.
    >
    >Arg. I don't know the easy way to fix that in a citep command.

    Nor do I - leave it for later.

    >-Rob

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 06 2003 - 13:12:48 PDT